1.

Malak Singh case

2. Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v Union of India, (2016)
3. Mr. X v. Hospital Z
4. Ram jethmalani v. UOI, 2011
5. Directorate of Revenue vs. Mohd. Nisar Holia
6. Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala
7. Gobind vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr
8. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
9. V.K. Javali v. State of Mysore
10. Modern Dental College &Ors vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7 SCC 353.
11. Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India, 2008
12. Proportionality test
13. Narrow tailoring
14. Right to remain silent
15. Sensitive data
16. Ultra vires

Malak Singh vs. State of Punjab and Haryana

In this case, Section 23 of the Punjab Police Rules was in question where Police have to
maintain surveillance register of the entire convicted person and reasonably believed to be a
habitual offender. The Court said that the most important purpose of the Constitution is to
prevent the crime. The court believed that the surveillance can be intrusive and it may
encroach privacy of a person and can infringe Article 21 and Article 19(1)(d)which cannot be
permitted. Court took the reference of European Convention of Human Rights where it was
said that respect should be given to one’s private and family life.

Court further said that it is not unlawful to conduct surveillance by police for the purpose of
preventing crime and confined to Rule 23.7. Court held that police cannot add the names of
any person they wish to in the surveillance register, it should be according to the Rule 23.4
and it should not offend the dignity of the individual. The court will not hesitate to give
protection to the person if there is excessive surveillance.

In this case court does not specifically consider privacy as a fundamental right but it indicated
the serious encroachment on privacy have an effect upon personal liberty and the freedom of
movement under Article 19(1)(d) and Article 21. The court said the kind of encroachment
which takes away the dignity of a person would be the hindrance in the exercise of
fundamental rights given by the Constitution.

Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v Union of India 

In this case question was raised on the disclosure of the name of the candidate for the
appointment as a Supreme Court or High Court Judge. There is an issue on which right will
supersede, right to privacy or right to know of the citizen. It struck down the 99th
Constitutional Amendment on the ground that it violates basic structure. It was held that
judicial primacy is compulsory according to the Constitution and it is a part of basic structure
which cannot be amended. Independence of Judiciary is considered to be an integral part.
Mr. X vs. Hospital Z 
In this case, the Appellant who was a doctor was accompanying a patient for surgery and he
was found HIV+ when he was tested for blood donation. He that by disclosing this fact by the
Hospital, he was excluded from the society and filed for damages before NCDRC saying that
hospital cannot disclose this fact and it resulted in calling off his marriage and social
exclusion.
The court said the rule of Confidentiality had an exception where public interest will override
this duty.

The Court held that the right to privacy is not absolute and is subject to action lawfully taken
to prevent crime or disorder or to protect the health, morals and the rights and freedoms of
others. Court further held that public disclosure of even true facts may amount to an invasion
of the right to privacy or the right to be let alone when a doctor breaches confidentiality. But
this disclosure saved one woman from getting infected therefore it does not violate the right
to privacy.

Ram Jethmalani v Union of India 

In this case, PIL was for investigating the unaccounted money and to follow the money trail
by appointing a Special Investigating Team for this. Court held that it will breach the privacy
of an individual by checking the bank account details and that too without establishing a
prima facie case against that person.

Court held that:

An inquisitorial order, where citizens’ fundamental right to privacy is breached by fellow
citizens is destructive of social order. The notion of fundamental rights, such as a right to
privacy as part of right to life, is not merely that the State is enjoined from derogating from
them. It also includes the responsibility of the State to uphold them against the actions of
others in the society, even in the context of exercise of fundamental rights by those others.

Court further held that the State can access the bank account details of any citizen in relation
to the investigation and to establish any crime but this power of State cannot be used by a
private citizen to force any citizen to show the bank accounts to the public.

Directorate of Revenue & Anr. vs. Mohammed Nisar Holia

https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org/case/directorate-of-revenue-ors-vs-mohammed-nisar-holia

Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala

https://indianlawportal.co.in/bijoe-emmanuel-v-state-of-kerala/#:~:text=Bijoe%20Emmanuel
%20v.%20State%20of%20Kerala%20One%20would,in%201985%20but%20refused%20to
%20sing%20with%20them.

Freedom of Silence In Bijoe Emmanuel v/s State of Kerala, three children of Jehovah’s
Witnesses, were expelled from school for refusing to sing the national anthem during the
school’s prayers. They stood up respectfully when the national anthem was sung, but did not
join his singing. The Kerala High Court confirmed their deportation from the school on the
grounds that they had committed a crime under Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act,
1971. However, the Supreme Court overturned the Supreme Court decision of HC. The
Supreme Court ruled that no one could be forced to sing the national anthem if he had
genuine conscientious objections because of his religious beliefs. There is no legal obligation
to sing the national anthem, and we do not consider it disrespectful for a person to stand up
respectfully while singing the national anthem.  It is true that Article 51-A (a) of the
Constitution imposes on every Indian citizen the duty “to respect the constitution and its
ideals and institutions, the national flag and the national anthem”. Anthem rises when the
national anthem is sung. It is not fair to say that lack of respect is shown by not participating
in singing. The exclusion of children from this school thus constituted a violation of their
fundamental right enshrined in Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution, which also provided for
the freedom of silence.

Gobind vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

In the case, Regulation 855 and 856 of UP State Police Regulations was in question where
history sheet(any a record like the private record, criminal, medical record of a personal
record of a person) was opened when the petitioner was in surveillance. The 3 judge bench
favoured the judgement of Kharak Singh and validated Police regulation except visiting in
the night.
During this case, law in the US had evolved and the Court took the reference of the case
Griswold vs. Connecticut where the advice or information related to contraceptive methods
was given to the married person and it was held invalid. In the case Jane Roe vs. Henry
Wade, the court said that the right to abort a child by married women is a part of the right of
personal privacy.

In the present case also court did not find the reference of Right to Privacy in the Constitution
but pointed out that certain rights should be protected as fundamental privacy rights. The
court said that privacy should be dealt with care and can only be denied when the superior
show countervailing interest is important. The law infringing the fundamental rights must
satisfy the compelling State interest test. The question can be raised that State interest is of
that importance that it can justify the infringement of rights.

As the right to privacy was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the Court tried to
give it a broader view. It founded that right of privacy overlaps with liberty. Justice Mathew
explained that  any right to privacy must encompass and protect the intimacies of the home ,
the family, marriage, mother hood , procreation and child rearing. Court further said that in
any event, the right to privacy needs to go through case by case development. When we make
the assumption that the right to personal liberty, right to move freely, freedom of speech
develops the independent right of privacy which can be said as fundamental right still we
cannot assume it is an absolute right.

Court further said that fundamental right must be subjected to restrictions on the basis of
public interest. Therefore it held that fundamental right which was given under Article 21
was not violated in the present case as it says, no person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except by the procedure established by law. So the procedure is given in
Regulation 853(c) and 857 is reasonable according to the Court.

Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India

https://lawtimesjournal.in/maneka-gandhi-vs-union-of-india/

Modern Dental College and Research Centre & others V. State of Madhya Pradesh &
others

https://lawtimesjournal.in/modern-dental-college-and-research-centre-others-v-state-of-
madhya-pradesh-others/

Anuj Garg & Ors vs Hotel Association Of India & Ors 

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/judiciary/case-of-anuj-garg-ors-v-hotel-association-of-
india-ors-4340.asp